A conventional Explosives Ordnance Disposal (EOD) scenario includes the following steps:
1) Emergency services, e.g. 911, police or fire, receive a report, usually from a witness, regarding a suspicious looking package;
2) A team of EOD bomb technicians (or Fire personnel) is dispatched to the scene;
3) Upon arriving at the location of the suspected threat the witness will be interviewed and then the EOD technicians will: a) survey the situation, b) secure the area, and c) start making precautionary judgments about immediate risks to life and property. Concurrent with the precautionary measures being taken, other risk assessments are being developed as the EOD team determines, as best they can, the exact nature of the threat so that a successful render safe procedure (RSP) can be executed;
4) Typically, in the RSP procedure, if the package is small and looks harmless, it will be X-rayed in position to determine the contents or shot with a disruptor;
5) Alternatively, or in addition, in cases in which a more serious threat is perceived, the EOD technicians deploy a robot to transfer the package to a large containment vessel; and
6) In the instance where step 5) is not possible, e.g. on a cruise ship, aircraft or transit way, measures must be immediately taken to deal with the threat and to manage or defeat the potentially hazardous event.
The problem with steps 4) and 5) is that the package remains a threat to the public, private property and the EOD team during and after these steps. Moreover, robots may not have full access to the package, and the containment vessel may have to be positioned a great distance away, due to its size.
In order to simplify the RSP, i.e. to provide a simple first step that is justified for both low and high-risk situations, an easily deployable, relatively-inexpensive explosive-containment device is required. Several explosive containment devices have been proposed, such as those disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 3,648,613 issued Mar. 14, 1972 to Arthur Cunn; U.S. Pat. No. 3,739,731 issued Jun. 19, 1973 to Patrick Tabor; U.S. Pat. No. 4,543,872 issued Oct. 1, 1985 to Graham et al; U.S. Pat. No. 4,836,079 issued Jun. 6, 1989 to Garth Barrett; and U.S. Pat. No. 5,044,252 issued Sep. 3, 1991 to Gamadi et al. Unfortunately, none provide an explosive containment system that provides safe containment for different sizes of explosions, i.e. the conventional devices are of a fixed size and shape, and will fail if the explosion is too powerful. Furthermore, most of the existing systems only cover the device, which does not prevent the explosion from damaging people or property below the device. While the Tabor device does disclose a tie string for raising the explosive device into the body of the containment device, it does not provide a remote capture system for completely enclosing the explosive device rapidly from a remote location, thereby eliminating any danger to the EOD technicians.
An object of the present invention is to overcome the shortcomings of the prior art by providing an easily deployable containment vessel, which can capture a potentially harmful device within an inner containment layer, and enclose any explosion within an outer expandable containment layer.